Skip to content

Poorly justified usage recommendation about git pull vs git fetch #2020

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
DeinAlptraum opened this issue Feb 14, 2025 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2021
Closed

Poorly justified usage recommendation about git pull vs git fetch #2020

DeinAlptraum opened this issue Feb 14, 2025 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2021

Comments

@DeinAlptraum
Copy link
Contributor

DeinAlptraum commented Feb 14, 2025

General overview of your idea.

Chapter 3, section "Remote Branches" contains the following line:
"Generally it’s better to simply use the fetch and merge commands explicitly as the magic of git pull can often be confusing."

This seems out of touch with reality. I don't think I know a single person who does this: it's an unnecessary extra step and git pull isn't that complicated. Using it directly is usually not a problem.
In my opinion, this line should just be removed.

What problem will this solve?

The current text misleads users into suboptimal behavior, and removing it would solve that problem, or at least let them come to their own conclusions based on the facts presented in the chapter.

Have you thought about other solutions?

As an alternative, the section should further elaborate explicitly why git pull is not recommended and what problems it can cause. In any case, the user should be allowed to draw their own conclusion.

Do you want to help with this enhancement idea?

Yes

@ben
Copy link
Member

ben commented Feb 14, 2025

I agree. Want to submit a PR? I'd love for you to get blame credit for the fix.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants